pageok
pageok
pageok
AK Supreme Court Stays Out Of "Scandal":

Several Alaska state representatives wen to the Alaska Supreme Court seeking to shut down the state legislature's investigation of the so-called Palin "troopergate" scandal. This means the legislature's investigative report will be released tomorrow. The Anchorage Daily News reports:

The state Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute and Anchorage attorney Kevin Clarkson, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Alaska Republican state legislators opposed to their colleagues' investigation.

The state legislators whose names appeared on the appeal attempting to stop the investigation are Wes Keller, Mike Kelly, Fred Dyson, Tom Wagoner, Carl Gatto and Bob Lynn.

Their lawyers argued that allowing the investigation to proceed would threaten the right under the Alaska Constitution to a "fair and just" investigation by the Legislature. They allege bias among the legislators who are leading the investigation, and that the Legislative Council lacks the authority to order the probe.

The court issued a short order, and an opinion is forthcoming

While I never thought the "troopergate" story made for much of a scandal, the aggressiveness with which some are trying to shut down an investigation would suggest otherwise. I suppose we'll see soon enough.

TruthInAdvertising:
"While I never thought the "troopergate" story made for much of a scandal, the aggressiveness with which some are trying to shut down an investigation would suggest otherwise. I suppose we'll see soon enough."

Will we? How is that possible when one of the prime actors, Governor Palin, refused to participate, barred her staff from participating and hid potentially relevant communications in a private e-mail account? We may learn something but it won't be the whole story, thanks to the Governor's actions.
10.9.2008 11:26pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):

How is that possible when one of the prime actors, Governor Palin, refused to participate, barred her staff from participating and hid potentially relevant communications in a private e-mail account?


Um, didn't her staff eventually participate, and didn't the kid who hacked her private email say "well, shucks, I didn't find anything but family pictures"?
10.9.2008 11:33pm
Norman Bates (mail):
Citizens concerned about the erratic and criminal behavior of a state trooper reported their concerns to the appropriate authorities. The horror!
10.9.2008 11:35pm
c.j. ammenheuser:
- sounds like proof that Palin did not beat the good ole boys network after all.
10.9.2008 11:38pm
JB:
"While I never thought the "troopergate" story made for much of a scandal, the aggressiveness with which some are trying to shut down an investigation would suggest otherwise. I suppose we'll see soon enough."

The Streisand Effect should be taught at all law and policy schools.

Try to hide something and it's guaranteed that your hiding it will be more visible than the thing you're trying to hide.
10.9.2008 11:42pm
David Warner:
"While I never thought the "troopergate" story made for much of a scandal, the aggressiveness with which some are trying to shut down an investigation would suggest otherwise. I suppose we'll see soon enough."

As opposed to the aggressiveness of the investigators, which would then suggest innocence? Since when is a vigorous defense evidence of guilt?

"- sounds like proof that Palin did not beat the good ole boys network after all."

I'd say it was always just a window of opportunity. Time will tell if she's made enough of that window to survive.
10.9.2008 11:47pm
Visitor Again:

Palins Repeatedly Pressed Case Against Trooper

Palin staff and husband hound trooper with three dozen calls to his superiors.

But never mind.

Palin Pre-empts State Report, Clears Self in Probe
10.9.2008 11:54pm
JB:
"Since when is a vigorous defense evidence of guilt?"


When it's performed through obstructionism.
10.9.2008 11:55pm
Psalm91 (mail):
Why did the McCain campaign and its "East Coast lawyers" permit the Alaska Supreme Court to issue this ruling? Doesn't the Court realize who is running the state now?
10.9.2008 11:59pm
c.j. ammenheuser:
It seems to me, that included in the duty of the Public Safety Director is the duty to protect Palin, and, when the governor said threats were made to her family, then it is the Public Safety Officer's responsibility to, if not arrest the the person who made the threat, at least keep him at a distance at which the Governor feels safe.
I'm just an ethics major. Can someone kindly cite a law, to explain why Palin had no authority to act for her own safety?
10.10.2008 12:04am
Daryl Herbert (www):
Palin put up with a stupid, corrupt, ideological investigation against her because, as governor, it wasn't going to interfere with her ability to get her job done.

But now those same partisan Democrats are using it to hurt her chances as VP. So she has to fight back.
10.10.2008 12:08am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
adler:

While I never thought the "troopergate" story made for much of a scandal


When you look closely at the details it's very apparent that she's told a series of brazen lies. One aspect of this is explained here.

There are a bunch of other glaring contradictions. For example, she's claiming that she and her family didn't know about Wooten's punishment until 7/08, even though she has also suggested that Wooten's complete personnel file was in Todd's possession in 2/08.

She has also repeatedly accused Wooten of being violent and abusive, even though Molly told police that Wooten never abused her. Palin also repeatedly cites the DVPO (restraining order) as proof that Wooten is violent, even though it was a temporary order that was quickly lifted because the judge found no evidence of violence. Palin has issued a statement falsely claiming that the judge did find evidence of violence.

Todd's filing released today falsely claims that the DVPO extended into 2006, even though it was dissolved in 5/05, after being in effect for just a few weeks. The McCain campaign has issued a statement suggesting the DVPO is still in effect.

There are lots of other shenanigans, most of which have been completely unreported. That darn liberal media.

The wikipedia article on this is a good reference. It points to about 150 sources. Google troopergate.
10.10.2008 12:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
charlie:

didn't her staff eventually participate


Belatedly, only after the GOP's attempt to ignore subpoenas was struck down by a judge. And Todd's cooperation is marginal. Instead of being examined, he wrote a statement. And Palin herself has not cooperated, after making many promises that she would.

didn't the kid who hacked her private email say "well, shucks, I didn't find anything but family pictures"?


She has other email accounts, which she is shielding from investigators.
10.10.2008 12:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
norman:

Citizens concerned about the erratic and criminal behavior of a state trooper reported their concerns to the appropriate authorities. The horror!


Except that they reported nothing until months or years later, when the divorce started. Palin's daughter Bristol admitted to police that they reported the Taser incident two years late "because of the divorce." The alleged death threat wasn't reported to the police until two months later.

So it's pretty clear that Wooten's behavior didn't bother them much until a custody battle was going on. It's also clear that the Palin family made many allegations that were ruled to be unfounded. It's also clear that they continued their campaign against him even after he had already been punished. That's called double jeopardy.

It's also clear that Palin is regularly making false statements about Wooten, and about her own actions.
10.10.2008 12:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
cj:

sounds like proof that Palin did not beat the good ole boys network after all


Palin is all about replacing the old gang of cronies with her own new gang of cronies. Read up about who got the jobs she handed out.

By the way, the Branchflower investigation was authorized by a unanimous vote of the Legislative Council, which consists of 8 R and 4 D. Poor Palin. Both parties decided to investigate her. It must be because she's such a fearless reformer, and not because she actually did something wrong.

when the governor said threats were made to her family, then it is the Public Safety Officer's responsibility to, if not arrest the the person who made the threat, at least keep him at a distance at which the Governor feels safe


No one outside the family ever heard Wooten threaten anyone. Palin said she heard a threat, but she didn't report it to her father (the target) until a month later. It wasn't reported to the police until two months later (on the day her sister filed for divorce).

When you look closely at the claims about threats, they fall apart. That's why the suspension letter sent to Wooten by Col. Grimes didn't even mention the alleged death threat.
10.10.2008 12:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
david:

Since when is a vigorous defense evidence of guilt?


Since when is stonewalling and ignoring subpoenas (until a judge slaps you) fairly described as "a vigorous defense?" Especially since she made many statements promising to fully cooperate, and is still (amazingly) calling herself "an open book."
10.10.2008 12:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
daryl:

now those same partisan Democrats are using it to hurt her chances as VP


The Legislative Council that launched the investigation (and appointed French to run it) consists of 8 R and 4 D. The two committees that authorized the subpoenas are also R controlled.

The investigation is bipartisan, and claims to the contrary are baloney. The McCain campaign has issued multiple statements accusing French of manipulating the witness list. They accuse Branchflower and French of "colluding on the issuing of subpoenas." This is a reference to the fact that Tibbles was not subpoenaed. But it was Ramras (R) who asked that Tibbles not be subpoenaed.

Also, it makes no sense to imply that the decision to not subpoena Tibbles is an act that's harmful to Palin. The only reason Branchflower asked for a subpoena for Tibbles is because Tibbles has taken the position that he will not speak with Branchflower voluntarily. (This is explained in the minutes of the 9/12 meeting at which the subpoenas were issued.) This seems to indicate that Tibbles's testimony would be unfavorable to Palin. If Tibbles's testimony would be favorable to Palin, then Tibbles is free to offer it, and the absence of the subpoena has no consequence. In other words, the decision to not subpoena Tibbles has the appearance of an act intended to protect Palin, rather than the opposite.

So this claim about French manipulating the witness list is transparent nonsense.
10.10.2008 12:42am
David Warner:
JB,

"When it's performed through obstructionism."

Clearly, you're not a lawyer. Nor am I. I was under the impression, however, that Prof. Adler was. I still don't see why political jockeying should affect the presumption of innocence.
10.10.2008 12:47am
Kelly (mail):
So what's the excuse of the day for why Wooten was actually fired? Something about budgets and a plane? That's only like the 5th or 6th different explanation that's been given since we were introduced to Sarah and her cute little Alaskan scandal.

The cover-up is always worse than the crime. Especially when the people doing the covering are as incompetent as these people appear to be.
10.10.2008 12:49am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
david:

I still don't see why political jockeying should affect the presumption of innocence.


Here are a bunch of statements that Palin made, promising to fully cooperate:


▪ On July 18, Palin said "we would never prohibit, or be less than enthusiastic about any kind of investigation."[125]

▪ On July 21, Palin said that said she welcomed an investigation. "I've said all along, hold me accountable," Palin told reporters.[126]

▪ On July 24, Palin said "I have absolutely nothing to hide … I'm happy to answer any questions between now and when they [the legislature] do conduct an investigation also. … I'm happy to comply, to cooperate. … No problem with an independent investigation."[127]

▪ On July 29, Palin's spokesperson said "the governor has said all along that she will fully cooperate with an investigation and her staff will cooperate as well."[128]

▪ On August 13, an official press release stated "Governor Palin has directed all of her staff to cooperate fully with Branchflower."[129]


Then McCain picked her, and she suddenly started stonewalling. Why? If she has nothing to hide, why is she suddenly doing so much hiding? If she was innocent, then there would be no need for all the "political jockeying." And therefore her evasiveness does indeed "affect the presumption of innocence."
10.10.2008 12:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kelly:

So what's the excuse of the day for why Wooten was actually fired?


You mean Monegan. Wooten has not been fired. But you're right, Palin keeps coming up with new reasons that she fired Monegan. It's kind of like the way we kept hearing new reasons for invading Iraq.
10.10.2008 12:55am
Kelly (mail):
Thanks, jukeboxgrad. Yeah, that's what I meant. And that's what I get for commenting when I should be sleeping.
10.10.2008 1:00am
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
Well, Wooten was suspended for, among other things, tasering his stepson; that was one of the findings of fact. Now, he did claim that his stepson "wanted it."

And Moneghan did tell the Anchorage paper that no one asked or even hinted that he should fire Wooten; Todd has apparently said that he'd been trying to get Wooten fired since before Sarah was even Governor.

One of the frustrating parts about keeping the Palin Rumors list is that it doesn't matter how often you gather up facts, there will be someone to repeat the rumor as fact.

(Psst. Why don't you try the one that said she thought "dinosaurs are Satan lizards"? I get asked about that one every couple days, even though it was started by a guy in a blog popst entitled "fake Palin rumors".)
10.10.2008 1:07am
Lev:

"While I never thought the "troopergate" story made for much of a scandal, the aggressiveness with which some are trying to shut down an investigation would suggest otherwise. I suppose we'll see soon enough."


The "report" has been promised to be released immediately before Election Day.

Since Palin has bucked the Alaskan Political Establishment, Democrat and Republican, one might reasonably expect the "report" would be a hit job by that establishmet, and want to delay it.
10.10.2008 1:07am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
adler:

This means the legislature's investigative report will be released tomorrow.


Slight correction. Tomorrow, Branchflower is going to hand his report to French. But then there is a vote regarding whether or not to release the report to the public. The whole report could be withheld, or certain portions could be withheld, on the grounds that a person's privacy is being violated.

I'm not clear about who will be in control tomorrow. It's either the Legislative Council, or it's some combination of the House/Senate Judiciary Committees. There will be some kind of non-public meeting to make decisions about this.

I predict that the report will be released to the public tomorrow, with minor redactions. But it's not a sure thing.
10.10.2008 1:08am
TruthInAdvertising:
"Citizens concerned about the erratic and criminal behavior of a state trooper reported their concerns to the appropriate authorities. The horror!"

Yes, I heard Palin's husband saying that he's an average citizen and he was just following the same channels as any other resident. But guess what? When your the husband of the Governor of the state and your interacting with state employees, your not "an average citizen". Sorry, Todd Palin may not like that but that's the downside of being the spouse of someone running the state. As innocent as he may have thought his actions were, you can never escape that dynamic and even if Monegan didn't feel pressured, it was inappropriate for Todd Palin to be having that kind of interaction with Monegan, when the man works for his wife.
10.10.2008 1:28am
David Warner:
Masterfully done, inquisitor JukeBoxMonsignor. Who will be your next heretic victim?
10.10.2008 1:31am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
charlie:

he did claim that his stepson "wanted it."


That's not just something that Wooten "did claim." It's consistent with the statements given to police by the other people present: Payton, Bristol and Molly. Molly was upstairs, and she was so concerned (not) that she didn't go to the trouble of going downstairs to intervene, even though she knew what was going on.

According to the boy, right after it was done he went upstairs to tell his mom he was fine. Wooten used a low-power test procedure, which means it would feel like your funny bone was hit.

Two years later, the family decided it was time to report this to the police. Exactly at the moment that Molly was filing for divorce. Fascinating coincidence.

Moneghan did tell the Anchorage paper that no one asked or even hinted that he should fire Wooten


Wrong. He said no one ever said directly 'fire Wooten.' Monegan never said that no one "even hinted that he should fire Wooten." On the contrary. Monegan has stated repeatedly that he was repeatedly pressured to fire Wooten. Here's some relevant text:

On August 28, in an interview with Anchorage Daily News, Monegan said, "For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff. What they said directly was more along the lines of 'This isn't a person that we would want to be representing our state troopers.' "[51] He later added that he had resisted pressure from the Governor and her husband to re-open the case against Wooten.[52]


Some other relevant text:

Monegan has made a number of other statements alleging that he had been pressured to fire Wooten. "There was pressure for that, yes."[54] "There were numerous contacts by the governor, her husband, by her staff that basically said that Trooper Wooten was not an acceptable example of an Alaska state trooper."[55] "The fact that they tried for better than a year while I was there is kind of indicative that somebody was trying to pressure something."[44]


Your claim about "even hinted" is false.

Todd has apparently said that he'd been trying to get Wooten fired since before Sarah was even Governor.


It is no secret that the Palin family vendetta against Wooten began in connection with the divorce proceedings in 2005, before Palin was even running for governor. When she took office, they carried the vendetta into her office, literally.

One of the frustrating parts about keeping the Palin Rumors list


One of the frustrating things about reading your Palin Rumors list is that it's packed with misinformation. For example, you say this:

he said in the Anchorage paper that, for the record, she never, and no one else in her administration ever, tried to make him fire her ex-brother-in-law.


That is a highly distorted version of what Monegan actually said.

You also say this:

did threaten to murder her father and sister


Read the police interviews from 2005. There was never an allegation that Wooten threatened to murder Molly. That embellishment was tacked on years later.

You also say this:

the state trooper was suspended when he was put under a court protective order


Wrong. The DVPO lasted from 4/11/05 to 5/9/05. Wooten's 5-day suspension took place in 2006.

did threaten to "bring her down"


Palin had no first-hand knowledge of this threat. It was something Molly claimed. Molly admitted to police that it was not a threat of violence, but rather a threat to make life difficult for them.

Et cetera.
10.10.2008 1:33am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
lev:

The "report" has been promised to be released immediately before Election Day.


Not exactly. The investigation was launched by the Legislative Council, which consists of 8 R and 4 D. They authorized a 3-month contract for Branchflower, starting on 8/1. Therefore the investigation was expected to end on 10/31. Then this happened:

On September 5 French said that rather than ending on October 31, the Friday before the election, the report would be complete by October 10. House Judiciary Chairman Ramras (R) said the reason for the earlier completion date for the report is to avoid the appearance of a last-minute "October surprise."[74] Other Republican lawmakers also expressed support for the earlier date.


That's why Branchflower is finishing his report by today (10/10).

Since Palin has bucked the Alaskan Political Establishment, Democrat and Republican, one might reasonably expect the "report" would be a hit job by that establishmet, and want to delay it.


Those words are a bit unclear. Are you saying that the "establishmet" are the ones who "want to delay it?" If so, then you haven't been paying attention.

By the way, Palin didn't start describing the report as "a hit job" until McCain picked her. Odd coincidence.
10.10.2008 1:43am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
truth:

even if Monegan didn't feel pressured


There's some confusion on this point, in no small part because people like the McCain campaign and Byron York are promoting blatant falsehoods (see here and here). And let's not forget charlie.

As I have cited above, Monegan has said emphatically and repeatedly that he was repeatedly pressured. And Todd Palin's 10/9 filing corroborates this.
10.10.2008 1:48am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
truth:

Yes, I heard Palin's husband saying that he's an average citizen and he was just following the same channels as any other resident.


It's true that Todd made this claim, but the claim isn't exactly true. In a legal filing on 9/1/08, Palin admitted that "no one in the Palin family ever filed a formal complaint," subsequent to the complaints the family made in 2005.

The normal "channels" for an "average citizen" would have been to file a formal complaint. But after 2005, the Palins never did that. Instead, they had multiple staffers exert pressure via several dozen contacts. In other words, they went through the back door, instead of the front door, probably because they understood their complaint had no legitimacy. Therefore they didn't want it to be formal and documented.
10.10.2008 1:57am
Guest12345:
Jeez jukebox, why don't you keep it over at Kos with the rest of your rants?
10.10.2008 2:04am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Hey guest, if you actually have a substantive complaint about anything I said, you should let us in on the secret and tell us what it is. But I guess you're determined to inadvertently demonstrate (by whining instead of making even a pretense of a substantive claim) that everything I've said is true. Thanks for the reverse endorsement, if you know what I mean.
10.10.2008 2:16am
Britney's Spheres:
Jeez Guest12345, why don't you keep it over at LGF with the rest of your rants?
10.10.2008 2:16am
David Warner:
So we get to hear from counsel for the defense, or do Star Chamber rules apply?
10.10.2008 2:31am
DangerMouse:
The party of Toricelli, Troopergate, Charlie Rangel, Pardongate, and pals-of-Ayers, wants to lecture people about a scandal?

Please.
10.10.2008 2:47am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
So we get to hear from counsel for the defense


McCain's incredibly lame and dishonest micro-site on this subject is here.

If they were organized, this site would host their new statement that is described here. But it doesn't.
10.10.2008 2:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Some of this stuff is priceless. From the new story in NYT:

The 2007 state fair was days away when Alaska's public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, took another call about one of his troopers, Michael Wooten. This time, the director of Gov. Sarah Palin's Anchorage office was on the line.

… the aide said the governor had heard that Trooper Wooten was assigned to work the kickoff to the fair in late August. If so, Mr. Monegan should do something about it, because Ms. Palin was also planning to attend and did not want him nearby.

Somewhat bewildered, Mr. Monegan soon determined that Trooper Wooten had indeed volunteered for duty at the fairgrounds — in full costume as "Safety Bear," the troopers' child-friendly mascot.


You can get a look at "Safety Bear" here. Late-night comedy writers are sharpening their pencils.
10.10.2008 2:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
The party of Toricelli, Troopergate, Charlie Rangel, Pardongate, and pals-of-Ayers


I think your contract stipulates that you're also supposed to mention The Clenis™.
10.10.2008 2:57am
DangerMouse:
Meh. The point is made. Now, go back to clipping all your research on this issue and furiously typing it up. I'm sure you missed some obscure article that needs to be excerpted here.
10.10.2008 3:01am
Psalm91 (mail):
It is very telling that despite his Wooten issues Todd appears to have no hard feelings towards the high school dropout who impregnated his 16 year old daughter. Great example of those "conservative traditional values" on his part. Any other fathers here feel the same way?
10.10.2008 3:04am
DangerMouse:
Psalm91's right: a liberal would've murdered the father.
10.10.2008 3:06am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I'm sure you missed some obscure article that needs to be excerpted here.


Mostly I've been citing legal filings issued by Palin, and police interviews from 2005. The quaint term for stuff like this is 'primary sources.' If you try really hard to make sure no facts invade your universe, you might have no idea what this means.
10.10.2008 3:12am
Harry Eagar (mail):
'It's also clear that Palin is regularly making false statements about Wooten' and also about her religious affiliation and the bridge to nowhere.
10.10.2008 4:27am
marbledclay:
I initially gathered the impression that "the hacker" had managed to crack Sarah Palin's much-publicized email account by entering as the password the ZIP code he had researched while having a go at the security questions. It did not take much reading to disabuse me of that notion—going to the email provider's password recovery page helped—but I remain curious as to the strength of her password. I generally figure that I have no right to information about a user's password, but as it turns out that Sarah Palin was using private email for state business, I hope that investigations will bring to light what strength of password she chose; the same goes for any other private email accounts used for state business.

It's very hard to convince some people in important positions that unencrypted email and unsecure web forms put information at risk. I'm running into that with a state ombudsman's office and the executives of a personal care home corporation. (I should find a web resource to cite, since I sure can't explain IT security risks.) The misconceptions among elected officials and government employees are astounding, but ignorance shouldn't be accepted as an excuse.

I hope that subpoenas for email data from and pertaining to Governor Palin's sneaky email account(s) will be forthcoming.
10.10.2008 5:18am
Public_Defender (mail):

While I never thought the "troopergate" story made for much of a scandal, the aggressiveness with which some are trying to shut down an investigation would suggest otherwise. I suppose we'll see soon enough.


My thoughts, too. As a liberal Democrat, I thought Troopergate seemed a little weak. It Palin had promised to cooperate, and the allegations looked explainable. But then Palin broke her repeated pledges to cooperate and launched a broadside on the investigator the Republican legislature picked to lead the investigation.


Since when is a vigorous defense evidence of guilt?

If Palin were actually vigorously defending herself, you'd have a point. But she's refusing to cooperate and she launched a full-frontal assault on the process she had agreed to.

Also, this isn't a criminal process--it's a truth-seeking process. The lead investigator can't assess any penalties, and his findings will only be as valuable as they are well-supported and persuasive. If Palin thought McCain's people thought that the report would exonerate Palin, they'd be touting it, not trying to suppress it.

Of course, maybe this is just one giant exercise in expectation-management on the part of the McCain campaign. That would be weird and erratic, but McCain is weird and erratic. On the other hand, I don't think McCain and his people have showed the strategic vision to pull something like that off.
10.10.2008 6:12am
Tom Perkins (mail):

Also, this isn't a criminal process--it's a truth-seeking process.


No it isn't. Considering who is undertaking it and their incentives, it is an anti-Palin propaganda producing process.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
10.10.2008 8:28am
Daniel J. Wojcik (mail) (www):
Premise: Monegan was fired because he wouldn't fire Wooten.

a) Palin could fire him for whatever reason she wanted, up to and including not liking his haircut. But never mind that.

b) Wooten has not been fired.

So. If she fired Monegan because he wouldn't fire Wooten, presumably she'd put someone in his place who *would* fire Wooten. Right?

Why hasn't Wooten been fired? Maybe because it was never the issue? Gosh.
10.10.2008 8:39am
Federal Dog:
Objecting to star chamber mistreatment does not equate with efforts to "hide" anything. It's obviously a political stunt; the underlying matter has been considered insufficiently important to warrant inquiry. Now, however, that she is running for national office, it's a hellfire emergency? Of course not.
10.10.2008 8:52am
Public_Defender (mail):

No it isn't. Considering who is undertaking it and their incentives, it is an anti-Palin propaganda producing process.

This is a Republican-initiated investigation that Palin agreed to cooperate with (before she knew she would be a vice presidential candidate, of course). To call it a "propaganda producing process" is, well, just propaganda.

Like Adler, I didn't think there would be much here. Like Adler, the McCain attack team makes me think I was wrong.

This isn't a criminal prosecution. The report is only as valuable as it is persuasive and well-supported. There's no reason for McCain to attack the ref (who was picked by the Republican-controlled legislature) in advance unless he thinks the report will show some impropriety by Palin.

Palin's Putin-like attitude toward this investigation speaks very poorly of her and of her would-be boss.
10.10.2008 9:00am
Angus:

So. If she fired Monegan because he wouldn't fire Wooten, presumably she'd put someone in his place who *would* fire Wooten. Right?
Because if she did so, it would be proof that it was the reason she fired Monegan.
10.10.2008 9:32am
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ jukeboxgrad

"The wikipedia article on this is a good reference."

Found your mistake.
10.10.2008 9:38am
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ jukeboxgrad

"Because if she did so, it would be proof that it was the reason she fired Monegan."

Except of course Wooten is -still on the job-.

Why Republicans put up with these idiot "investigations" is frankly beyond me. They're all political hit jobs that Democrats -never- allow.
10.10.2008 9:39am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I hope that subpoenas for email data from and pertaining to Governor Palin's sneaky email account(s) will be forthcoming.


Some info on that subject is here.
10.10.2008 9:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
perkins:

Considering who is undertaking it and their incentives, it is an anti-Palin propaganda producing process.


The "who" is a bipartisan committee that is 2/3 Republican. And which voted unanimously to launch the investigation.

You also haven't bothered to explain why Palin repeatedly expressed her support for this investigation.
10.10.2008 9:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
daniel:

So. If she fired Monegan because he wouldn't fire Wooten, presumably she'd put someone in his place who *would* fire Wooten. Right?


Try reading the article. She was pressuring Kopp to fire Wooten before Kopp was even hired.
10.10.2008 9:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

the underlying matter has been considered insufficiently important to warrant inquiry.


Are you living in a parallel universe? I guess so. The bipartisan Legislative Committee did indeed unanimously rule that the matter was sufficiently "important to warrant inquiry."

Now, however, that she is running for national office, it's a hellfire emergency? Of course not.


The LC handed Branchflower a three-month contract, scheduled to end on 10/31. Why should that be delayed just because there is now a lot at stake for the GOP? Isn't it even more important for the public to have all the facts?
10.10.2008 9:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ed:

Found your mistake.


If you can actually find a mistake in the wiki article, I would greatly appreciate that. It contains no statements that are not verifiable. It provides about 150 citations.

If you have a better source, let us in on the secret and tell us what it is. Maybe the "report" issued by Palin?

Wooten is -still on the job-


Only because Monegan has integrity.
10.10.2008 9:51am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
More lying from the GOP:

Republican state Rep. John Coghill, a member of the committee, said he would try to keep the discussion focused on the what legislators set out to investigate: Monegan's firing. ''It wasn't supposed to look into the whole administration team. It was supposed to look at the governor.''


Uh, no. The text from the original motion is here:

Palin is being investigated by an independent investigator, hired by a unanimous vote of a bipartisan committee of the Alaska Legislature,[7] "to investigate the circumstances … surrounding [Monegan's termination], and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."
10.10.2008 9:51am
Thomas J. Jackson:
jukeboxgrad said:

According to the boy, right after it was done he went upstairs to tell his mom he was fine. Wooten used a low-power test procedure, which means it would feel like your funny bone was hit.

You sir are an ignorant buffoon. There is no such thing as a "low-power test procedure" on a Taser. It operates the same way, every time.

When one performs a test fire on a Taser, one removes the Taser Cartridge from the device and cycles the weapon to ensure that it is properly functioning. This is usually done prior to the start of a shift.

There is no power setting or way to modify the amount of current that runs through the Taser. When you pull the trigger, it's all or nothing.

In my training I have had the Taser used on me more than once. I can tell you that under no circumstances does it "feel like your funny bone was hit." It hurts. BAD. It ranks among the worse pain that a human can feel.

Where did you come up with your nonsense? What left-wing blog told you that there was a "low power test procedure" on a Taser?
10.10.2008 10:17am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Might as well also deal with some pathetic spin just out from Weekly Standard:

The Times portrays the death threat as a "he said, she said" incident and merely adds that Wooten's "suspension letter mentions nothing about threats." But the internal trooper investigation "sustained" the charge that Wooten threatened that Palin's father would "eat a f---ing lead bullet"--although the report concluded "a statement 'or implied threat to a non-present third party is not a crime." Neglecting the conclusions of the internal trooper investigation is some incredibly shoddy reporting.


It's true that the Memorandum of Findings "sustained" the charge about the death threat. But that finding was overruled by Col. Grimes, the superior officer who issued the suspension letter. Probably because there are so many indications that the death-threat allegation is bogus. Like the fact that Palin didn't bother telling her father about it for a month. Like the fact that no one told the police about it for two months. Like the fact that no one outside the family ever heard this threat, or any other threat. Like the fact that Palin's behavior after hearing the threat showed that she didn't take it seriously (she left for a meeting, instead of going inside Molly's house to protect her).

Grimes overruled the original Findings in another respect, also. The original report tossed out the beer incident. Grimes put it back in.
10.10.2008 10:17am
Thomas J. Jackson:
Jukeboxgrad, you might want to stop with the "Republican lying" comments.

Your credibility is shot after your "low powered test procedure" comment. I hope and pray that lefties are dumb enough to use that line, as that makes it quite clear that this is nothing more than a political stunt to smear Gov. Palin.

Under no circumstances should that Taser have been used on a child. The fact that the trooper did so questions his judgment.

And this is coming from another LEO. Had I ever been caught using my Taser in that manner, I would have been fired on the spot.
10.10.2008 10:21am
Federal Dog:
The allegations date from 2006. Had the matter legitimately been considered proper for investigation, it would have been undertaken long ago.

It would not have been delayed until the 2008 election, it would not have been headed by someone seeking to place Obama in office, and results of that "investigation" would not be demanded before election day.
10.10.2008 10:53am
Anderson (mail):
I agree w/ Prof. Adler -- the basic story never seemed like a big deal to me, but the cover-up is worrisome.

The most interesting allegation I've seen is that Palin leaned on the state's contractor for evaluating workers' comp claims to get Wooten's claim denied.

Allegedly, the contractor testified that she wasn't unduly influenced to deny the claim; then one of her employees ratted on her out of disgust; *then* the contractor gave new sworn testimony contradicting her earlier denial, and admitting that "she was asked to deny the claim - at the direct request of Sarah and Todd Palin."

True or false? Maybe we'll have a better idea after the report comes out.
10.10.2008 10:59am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
jackson:

There is no such thing as a "low-power test procedure" on a Taser. It operates the same way, every time.


Wrong. They make a training cartridge. Aside from that, even if you're using a live cartridge, the user controls the spark duration (see page 6 of the operating manual; pdf). Aside from that, in a training scenario the user can clip the probes to your clothes, instead of shooting them at you. This involves the use of alligator-clip training leads. So you are wrong to claim "it operates the same way, every time."

There is no power setting or way to modify the amount of current that runs through the Taser. When you pull the trigger, it's all or nothing.


Strictly speaking, the voltage is constant, but the intensity of the shock that is conveyed is controlled by limiting the spark duration. You know that you can limit the duration, right? Maybe you should review the manual. I even told you what page to look at.

under no circumstances does it "feel like your funny bone was hit."


Thank goodness you're more knowledgeable than the folks who build it:

Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for Taser International [said] if the Taser is fired for just a second, it would feel like your funny bone was hit


The duration matters. Like I said, try reading the manual.

It ranks among the worse pain that a human can feel.


A Popular Mechanics lab test showing a volunteer being Tased is here (video). The volunteer and his laughing assistants don't seem to think that anyone is experiencing "the worse pain that a human can feel."

Under no circumstances should that Taser have been used on a child. The fact that the trooper did so questions his judgment.


That's true. That's the main reason he was suspended. The other findings against him were relatively immaterial.

By the way, tell us what you think of the "judgment" of the family that didn't report this to the police for two years. When asked why they finally reported it, Bristol said "because of the divorce."

Wooten describes the incident here.

Had I ever been caught using my Taser in that manner, I would have been fired on the spot.


That's beside the point. Wooten was disciplined in 2006, before Monegan was on the job, and before Palin was governor. It would have been double jeopardy for Monegan to reopen the matter. Speaking of things you need to read, try the 5th and 14th amendments.
10.10.2008 11:03am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
One more thing. If Palin believes the investigation and punishment of Wooten wasn't proper and sufficient (and she has said so), then her beef is with Grimes, not Wooten. Because Grimes was in charge of that investigation. Why is there not even the slightest sign of Palin ever making an attempt to rebuke or discipline Grimes? Grimes is still on the job.
10.10.2008 11:13am
Tom Tildrum:
Whatever the other merits of the matter, it is a bit astounding that the liberal position is to accuse a putative victim of domestic violence of lying. Those "I Believe Anita" bumper stickers must have faded away by now.
10.10.2008 11:13am
Philistine (mail):
@Federal Dog


The allegations date from 2006. Had the matter legitimately been considered proper for investigation, it would have been undertaken long ago.

It would not have been delayed until the 2008 election, it would not have been headed by someone seeking to place Obama in office, and results of that "investigation" would not be demanded before election day.



Your timeline is quite a bit off.

Monegan was fired in July of 2008. The investigation began (and was scheduled to end before election day) before Palin was tapped as VP.
10.10.2008 11:14am
Federal Dog:
The allegations that she improperly used gubernatorial powers against Wooten date from 2006. Allegations that she improperly used mayoral powers against Wooten date from 2005. Monegan was fired in 2008.

So actually, the allegations that she improperly used government office to retaliate against Wooten date from 2005, not 2006.
10.10.2008 11:31am
Philistine (mail):
@Federal Dog:

Her term as mayor ended in 2002.

She didn't actually take over as Governor until the beginning of 2007, I believe (elected in 2007).

AIUI, the investigation is her abuse of power in pressuring Monegan, and then firing him for not caving to the pressure.

You know--these are basic facts, here, not subject to dispute. You might want to do some reading on the subject.
10.10.2008 11:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

The allegations date from 2006.


Your command of the facts is pathetically deficient. The Taser incident happened in 2003. The moose incident happened in 2003. The beer incident happened in 2004. These events were reported to the police in 2005.

Had the matter legitimately been considered proper for investigation, it would have been undertaken long ago.


Every now and then you might consider visiting Planet Earth.

As soon as these events were reported, a thorough investigation was done. Fifteen witnesses were interviewed. This led to Wooten being suspended in 2006.

It would not have been delayed until the 2008 election


OK. So by "allegations" you mean the allegations against Palin, that she abused her power as governor. No, those allegations don't "date from 2006." Here's one way we know that: she didn't even take office until 12/06.

Then for about 18 months she and her staff pressured Monegan and others. Finally, in 7/08 she fired Monegan. This is what broke the story open and led to the Branchflower investigation.

Are you upset that the Branchflower investigation didn't happen earlier? I guess Palin could have made that happen by firing Monegan earlier.

it would not have been headed by someone seeking to place Obama in office


OK, I get it. In your world, any investigation of a Republican is presumptively unfair unless the investigation is being done strictly by other Republicans. Thanks for clearing that up. Makes perfect sense.

As Judge Michalski said:

It is expected that legislators will belong to some party and will support the positions of their party, often publicly. The legislature is, by its nature, a political branch. It would be assumed that, e.g., review of Wall Street's financiers might be founded on a strongly held and expressed belief that somebody did something wrong.


By the way, French was appointed by a unanimous vote of the Legislative Council. 8 R, 4 D.

I notice you're not bothering to explain why Palin emphatically supported the Branchflower investigation, until McCain got her on the phone.

results of that "investigation" would not be demanded before election day


On 8/1, Branchflower was hired for a 3-month contract. Please explain why that should be changed simply because Palin has an interest in hiding facts from voters.

The allegations that she improperly used gubernatorial powers against Wooten date from 2006.


She took office on 12/4/06. No one has alleged that she started pressuring Monegan re Wooten prior to 1/07. What on earth are you talking about?

Allegations that she improperly used mayoral powers against Wooten date from 2005.


She stopped being mayor in 2002. You really need to get a grip.

By the way, as mayor she wrote a glowing character reference for Wooten.

the allegations that she improperly used government office to retaliate against Wooten date from 2005


At the time that she started making a bunch of (mostly false) allegations against Wooten in 2005, she was not a governor and she was not a mayor. She held no "government office" at that time.
10.10.2008 11:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
anderson:

the basic story never seemed like a big deal to me


I really don't understand why it's not a big deal that Palin, for personal reasons, tried to influence Monegan to impose double jeopardy on Wooten.

The most interesting allegation I've seen is that Palin leaned on the state's contractor for evaluating workers' comp claims to get Wooten's claim denied.


It's interesting to note that tampering with a worker's comp claim can be a criminal offense. In Alaska, at least.
10.10.2008 11:41am
Federal Dog:
Philistine:

I am incorrect about the dates that she occupied the mayor's office: When she made the 2005 complaints, she was not mayor.

However, she allegedly resumed asserting pressure to secure action against Wooten in December 2006 when she assumed the governor's office. That pressure allegedly continued during multiple meetings in early 2007.

My one post was incorrect: She was clearly not mayor when she complained in 2005 about Wooten's conduct. My other post, however, was not incorrect: The first allegations against her (as governor) date from December 2006. Allegations that she improperly abused that office to retaliate against her sister's ex-husband date from December 2006.
10.10.2008 11:51am
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

"That's true. That's the main reason he was suspended. The other findings against him were relatively immaterial."

where you were referring to the use of a Taser.

Unfortunately, what you wrote is inaccurate and incorrect. Here are some excerpts from the 03/01/06 suspension letter to Trooper Wooten:

"The use of your department issued Taser on a ten-year old child, your stepson, Payton demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a conscience choice you made to violate the department's standards of conduct."

and:

"The issue of the wildlife violation has even deeper ramifications."

and:

"The issue of drinking alcoholic beverages (beer) prior to operating, and then during the operation of a marked patrol vehicle...further demonstrates your lack of judgment and a profound disrespect for the responsibilities of a law enforcement officer."

Ultimately, Wooten was notified in the letter:

"Based on the totality of this review and your past history (emphasis added), you will be suspended for ten-working days."

So clearly, the charge concerning the use of the Taser was not the "main reason" Wooten was suspended, nor were the "other findings against him relatively immaterial."
10.10.2008 11:57am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

Allegations that she improperly abused that office to retaliate against her sister's ex-husband date from December 2006.


This is splitting hairs a bit, but facts are facts.

One more time. She took office on 12/4/06. No one has alleged that she did anything improper re Wooten in 12/06. Todd's famous meeting with Monegan happened in 1/07.
10.10.2008 11:58am
Oren:

It is very telling that despite his Wooten issues Todd appears to have no hard feelings towards the high school dropout who impregnated his 16 year old daughter.

But he's so hunky!

Thomas, I've been tased, upon request, by an LEO friend of mine on a low setting. Despite what the loony left claims every time a PCP addict overdoses and is tased and keels over, tasers are perfectly safe for healthy people.

Unless you are claiming that tasers are in fact a deadly weapon, in which case you are inviting a world of hurt because you can no longer use them freely but have to comply with Tenn. v. Gardener.
10.10.2008 11:59am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

the use of the Taser was not the "main reason" Wooten was suspended, nor were the "other findings against him relatively immaterial."


Here are some facts about the moose incident:

he had been out hunting with McCann in September 2003 and had shot the animal himself even though their permit was in McCann's name only.[20] According to subsequent news reports, McCann had obtained the permit but balked at killing the moose herself, so she handed the gun to her then-husband, who shot the animal.[27]


Sounds pretty immaterial to me. The holder of the permit was right there. No one thought this needed to be reported to the police until 2005, when a divorce was underway. And apparently the family (including, most likely, Sarah and her father) ate the moose.

Here are some facts about the beer incident:

Wooten was not on duty; he was wearing "civilian attire." And he "drove approximately one mile to his residence."[15] Because Wooten "was a member of the SERT [SWAT] team … he [was allowed to] use his State vehicle for personal use."[31] The only witnesses to this event were close friends of Sarah Palin's father: "Adrian Lane was a student of Chuck Heath's in Idaho when he was a child and they have been close friends ever since."[20] This is apparently why the original Memorandum of Findings[20] treated this allegation as "Not Sustained." Wooten denied this allegation.[15]


Sounds pretty immaterial to me. Lots of people falsely claim he was on duty.

You're obviously entitled to your own opinion about these incidents, and also your own opinion about the vague language in the Grimes letter. But I think it's pretty obvious that the Taser incident is more important than these other two matters.
10.10.2008 12:16pm
Thomas J. Jackson:
[i]Wrong. They make a training cartridge. Aside from that, even if you're using a live cartridge, the user controls the spark duration (see page 6 of the operating manual; pdf). Aside from that, in a training scenario the user can clip the probes to your clothes, instead of shooting them at you. This involves the use of alligator-clip training leads. So you are wrong to claim "it operates the same way, every time."[/i]

Uh no. The Taser still operates the same way, every time. Whether you are ultizing it in Drive-Stun Mode, or using Alligator-Clips for training purposes, the Taser functions with the same voltage, the same current, the same output. It functions THE SAME WAY, EVERYTIME. While one can stop the cycle mid-stream by reactivating the safety, the fact remains that there is no such thing as a "low-powered training procedure."

[i]Thank goodness you're more knowledgeable than the folks who build it, Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for Taser International [said] if the Taser is fired for just a second, it would feel like your funny bone was hit.[/i]

Tuttle is protecting his product from media attacks. I can tell you, as one who has experienced various duration Taser bursts, in both modes, IT DOES NOT ever feel like your funny bone was hit.

[i]A Popular Mechanics lab test showing a volunteer being Tased is here (video). The volunteer and his laughing assistants don't seem to think that anyone is experiencing "the worse pain that a human can feel."[/i]

1. They are not using an X-26.

2. Look at the pain he is in when he is actually being stunned.

3. You just pwned yourself with your own video.

[quote]That's true. That's the main reason he was suspended. The other findings against him were relatively immaterial.

By the way, tell us what you think of the "judgment" of the family that didn't report this to the police for two years. When asked why they finally reported it, Bristol said "because of the divorce."[/quote]

You are trying your best to justify an out of control Trooper because of your worship of "the messiah" "lord barry" and your hatred for Gov. Palin.

Did you stop to realize that you just contradicted yourself. Let's see if you are smart enough to figure out how.

[quote]That's beside the point. Wooten was disciplined in 2006, before Monegan was on the job, and before Palin was governor. It would have been double jeopardy for Monegan to reopen the matter. Speaking of things you need to read, try the 5th and 14th amendments.[/quote]

It's quite apparent at this point that you are not a lawyer. Perhaps one of the lawyers on here will explain to you the actual application of the 5th and 14th Amendments to this issue.
10.10.2008 12:19pm
Thomas J. Jackson:
Thomas, I've been tased, upon request, by an LEO friend of mine on a low setting. Despite what the loony left claims every time a PCP addict overdoses and is tased and keels over, tasers are perfectly safe for healthy people.

Unless you are claiming that tasers are in fact a deadly weapon, in which case you are inviting a world of hurt because you can no longer use them freely but have to comply with Tenn. v. Gardener.


They are less-lethal weapons. They are not toys. While it is true that it is very unlikely that they would cause permanent injury, they still are a less-than-lethal weapon, and they should NEVER be used in the manner in which Wooten utilized it.

And no, you were not Tased by an LEO friend on a low setting, because there is no power setting on a Taser.

You people really need to quit making stuff up.
10.10.2008 12:22pm
DangerMouse:
If Palin had the right to fire Monegan for any reason, then what difference does it make if she fired him because she didn't like his haircut or if she fired him because he didn't fire a person who ultimately wasn't fired?
10.10.2008 12:27pm
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

"You're obviously entitled to your own opinion about these incidents, and also your own opinion about the vague language in the Grimes letter. But I think it's pretty obvious that the Taser incident is more important than these other two matters."

Agreed on one's own opinion. Given your statement of:

"But I think it's pretty obvious that the Taser incident is more important than these other two matters."

and Director Grimes writing:

"Based on the totality of this review and your past history (emphasis added), you will be suspended for ten-working days."

I'll place more emphasis in the words written by Director Grimes on why she decided on the discipline she did.
10.10.2008 12:31pm
Federal Dog:
The allegation is that right after she was sworn in as governor (in early December 2006), her office immediately contacted Monegan about Wooten and set up a meeting to request a disciplinary inquiry.
10.10.2008 12:35pm
c.j. ammenheuser:
Laser tests on adults have concluded that the odds are one death out of 1,000 and three hospitalizations.

To date there are 250+ deaths
10.10.2008 1:44pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
If the vigor of the defense is a presumption that "something happened", then we need to take a hard look at why Obama's campaign is spending time and money defending against a birth documents check when a small fee, maybe $25, to the relevant local agency would solve the problem.
Must mean something's fishy.
Now, to shortcut the Deliberately Obtuse, I don't know that something's fishy. I'm using the vigor-of-defense rule, taught in all the best law schools. Don't blame me.
10.10.2008 1:46pm
c.j. ammenheuser:
Oops. Typo.
That should be Taser
10.10.2008 1:47pm
Kevin P. (mail):
jukeboxgrad, do you actually have a day job? Is someone paying you to do some real work while you instead spend your time writing hundreds of posts attacking Sarah Palin? You are so partisan on this subject that you have become untrustworthy. If Sarah Palin blew her nose, you would find some malicious conspiracy and cover-up in the snot. You have become a caricature.

But hey, keep trying to keep this story going. The vast majority of citizens who hear all the details - not just the ones that you promote - are going to think that Wooten was someone not fit to wear a police uniform and carry a gun. They are simply not going to get exercised about any alleged attempts to get rid of him. And that's all that they are - allegations.
10.10.2008 6:02pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
jackson:

It functions THE SAME WAY, EVERYTIME. While one can stop the cycle mid-stream by reactivating the safety, the fact remains that there is no such thing as a "low-powered training procedure."


The amount of energy that's transferred from the device to the subject is a direct function of how long the device is turned on. If the spark duration is short, then the total amount of energy that's delivered is low. Therefore the phrase I used ("low-power test procedure") is a perfectly reasonable way to summarize what he was doing, for a non-technical audience.

Tuttle is protecting his product from media attacks.


Thanks for giving us your opinion, that Tuttle has a motivation to not tell us the truth. Thank goodness there's no reason for anyone to apply the same reasoning to you.

You are trying your best to justify an out of control Trooper


Try responding to that I've actually said, instead of your fantasy of what you think I mean. I never said Tasing the kid was proper. What I'm saying is that the circumstances should be described properly.

Perhaps one of the lawyers on here will explain to you the actual application of the 5th and 14th Amendments to this issue.


Since you know so much about the law, it should be easy for you to explain why it was proper for Palin to expect Monegan to impose double jeopardy on Wooten. What are you waiting for?
10.10.2008 6:10pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
danger:

If Palin had the right to fire Monegan for any reason, then what difference does it make if she fired him because she didn't like his haircut or if she fired him because he didn't fire a person who ultimately wasn't fired?


The issue of whether or not it was proper for Palin to fire Monegan is separate from the issue of whether or not it was proper for Palin to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten. Proving that the former is proper is not the same thing as proving that the latter is proper.

There are other potential issues, too, like improper handling of personal information, tampering with a workers comp claim, and lying to lawmakers and the public.
10.10.2008 6:10pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

Based on the totality of this review and your past history


There's nothing in that statement to contradict the perspective I described, that the most important incident is the Taser incident. And since you want to focus so much on what Grimes actually said, please pay attention to the fact that she put that incident at the top of her list.
10.10.2008 6:10pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

The allegation is that right after she was sworn in as governor (in early December 2006), her office immediately contacted Monegan about Wooten and set up a meeting to request a disciplinary inquiry.


OK, I guess you want to keep splitting this hair.

Yes, in 12/06 Palin's office called Monegan's office to arrange a meeting. The meeting took place on 1/4/07. As far as I can tell, Monegan didn't know the subject of the meeting until that day.

Tell us again why you're making a fuss about this?
10.10.2008 6:11pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
cj:

Laser tests on adults have concluded that the odds are one death out of 1,000 and three hospitalizations.


I assume that's under field operating conditions, which means there is a normal spark duration, and the probes are fired instead of clipped. The procedure Wooten used was different.
10.10.2008 6:11pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kevin:

You are so partisan on this subject that you have become untrustworthy


If you can present an example of something I've said that's incorrect, that would be helpful. I'll be waiting patiently.

The vast majority of citizens who hear all the details - not just the ones that you promote


If you can show an example of an important detail that I've been obscuring or overlooking, that would be helpful. I'll be waiting patiently.

that's all that they are - allegations


Please ignore the various forms of hard evidence, like emails Palin wrote.
10.10.2008 6:11pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
More falsehoods from the McCain campaign. Their latest release on the subject (doc) says Wooten was the subject of a DVPO (restraining order) "in 2005 and early 2006."

That's false. The DVPO was created on 4/11/05, and dissolved on 5/9/05, because "during the DVPO hearing, the judge found there was no basis for issuance of a long-term DVPO." Molly was unable to produce evidence of violence.
10.10.2008 6:23pm
Daniel J. Wojcik (mail) (www):
If the vigor of the defense is a presumption that "something happened", then we need to take a hard look at why Obama's campaign is spending time and money defending against a birth documents check when a small fee, maybe $25, to the relevant local agency would solve the problem.
Must mean something's fishy.


The only thing that looked fishy to me (going by the images floating around the web) is that a piece of paper, almost 50 years old, doesn't looked the least bit creased, wrinkled, faded, or even rough around the edges.

Mine looks like it accidentally found its way into the laundry. Which it didn't. It's been in a box, most of the time in a glassine envelope. Maybe his Mom kept it in a nitrogen filled chamber on the off-chance he'd need it to run for President.
10.10.2008 6:46pm
Kevin P. (mail):

jukeboxgrad:

kevin:
You are so partisan on this subject that you have become untrustworthy

If you can present an example of something I've said that's incorrect, that would be helpful. I'll be waiting patiently.


Here you go. A few posts back, you said:

10.10.2008 5:10pm:
Since you know so much about the law, it should be easy for you to explain why it was proper for Palin to expect Monegan to impose double jeopardy on Wooten.


If you were not such a partisan clown, you would know that double jeopardy is a defense that applies only to persons charged with a crime in a criminal trial. Wooten had only an administrative hearing inside his police department - not even a civil trial - and the double jeopardy defense does not apply to these proceedings. Why, a ten second search on Google finds the accurate Wikipedia page on what double jeopardy is about. But in your blind hatred of Palin, you can't get even the most elementary legal information correct. And you expect us to take seriously your vomitings and bile because of sheer volume.

Jeez, I will be glad when this election is over just because I hope you will then stop puking all over this blog.
10.10.2008 11:57pm
Bad English:
I see that the Obama guy heading the inquisition has delivered his promised "October surprise." No "surprise" here. Monegan's firing was completely lawful. Stuff, however, that supposedly happened almost two years ago -- which no one thought to have reviewed as any "abuse of power" -- has now been dredged up and offered as election fare.
10.11.2008 8:28am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kevin:

double jeopardy is a defense that applies only to persons charged with a crime in a criminal trial


See Monegan's testimony in the Branchflower report. Todd Palin wanted Monegan to bring criminal charges against Wooten for shooting the moose.

Is this really the best you can do? Claim that I've allegedly misunderstood what double jeopardy means? In all the statements I've made about Troopergate, you can't find another instance of something you can contest? Thanks for the reverse endorsement.

Anyway, you seem to be claiming it would have been proper to reopen the investigation regarding Wooten's behavior, even though that investigation had already concluded, and even though it had already resulted in disciplinary action against Wooten. Really? What was the basis to reopen that investigation?

Palin's lawyers understand quite well that there was no basis to reopen the investigation, and that it was wrong to try to get Wooten punished again for acts that had already been punished. That's why they've been advising Sarah and Todd to falsely claim that they never knew that Wooten had already been disciplined. Trouble is, Branchflower cites testimony from at least two witnesses who point out that the Palins are lying about this.

Other facts also demonstrate the lie. Palin has admitted being in possession of Wooten's personnel file.
10.11.2008 10:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bad:

Monegan's firing was completely lawful.


Branchflower found that Palin had the right to fire Monegan, but that she did not have the right to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten. These are two separate issues.

the Obama guy heading the inquisition


I hope you'll explain why the bipartisan Legislative Council, composed of 8 R and 4 D, voted unanimously to hire an "Obama guy."

Stuff, however, that supposedly happened almost two years ago -- which no one thought to have reviewed as any "abuse of power" -- has now been dredged up and offered as election fare.


Palin's pressure on Monegan took place over the period from 1/07 to at least 5/08. So I hope you'll explain what you mean by "almost two years ago." And I hope you'll explain what you mean by "no one thought." All this came to light because Palin fired Monegan. She did that in July.

Maybe she should have held off on that until after the election.
10.11.2008 10:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Oh yeah. And it was also the bipartisan Legislative Council that just voted unanimously to release the Branchflower report.

Poor Sarah. The Rs are out to get her and the Ds are out to get her. And there were even two courts that just recently ruled against her. I guess this proves that she didn't do anything wrong, and she's really just a fearless reformer.
10.11.2008 10:59am
Fury:
ukeboxgrad writes:

Is this really the best you can do? Claim that I've allegedly misunderstood what double jeopardy means? In all the statements I've made about Troopergate, you can't find another instance of something you can contest? Thanks for the reverse endorsement.

Well, you have misunderstood double jeopardy. This is a legal blog. Your posts to VC used to be tight and concise. I'm disappointed.

You made the following statement:

"That's beside the point. Wooten was disciplined in 2006, before Monegan was on the job, and before Palin was governor. It would have been double jeopardy for Monegan to reopen the matter."

and this:

"I really don't understand why it's not a big deal that Palin, for personal reasons, tried to influence Monegan to impose double jeopardy on Wooten"

and this:

"Since you know so much about the law, it should be easy for you to explain why it was proper for Palin to expect Monegan to impose double jeopardy on Wooten. What are you waiting for?"

It was you who in effect challenged a VC'r to discuss double jeopardy in regards to Palin, Monegan and Wooten. Then, when the VC'r does so, you try to diminish how someone with facts has pointed out that you're using the term double jeopardy incorrectly.

If you're going to hold people to a high standard in posting accurate comments (which is a reasonable conclusion based on your VC posts), don't be surprised when others hold you to the same standard. Again jukeboxgrad, it goes to the issue of intellectual rigor.
10.11.2008 1:16pm
Tom Perkins (mail):

This is a Republican-initiated investigation that Palin agreed to cooperate with (before she knew she would be a vice presidential candidate, of course). To call it a "propaganda producing process" is, well, just propaganda.


Alaska is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party. The way West Virginia used to be for the Democrats.

It has a corrupt old boys network, go figure.

Palin shredded that network in the process of taking the governor's office, turning out corrupt officials with R's after their names in the process. The Republican's in the Alaskan legislature are not Palin's friends.

Once the Democrat running the investigation promised to deliver mud for Obama, I see no impropriety in Palin's no longer co-operating with his pet PI. Why should she when even the pretense of impartiality had been discarded?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
10.11.2008 10:55pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

you try to diminish how someone with facts has pointed out that you're using the term double jeopardy incorrectly


Because that's a distraction. The underlying issue remains: it would be wrong to discipline Wooten again, given that there was no new misconduct. This is true regardless of whether or not one calls it "double jeopardy."
10.12.2008 4:32am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
perkins:

The Republican's in the Alaskan legislature are not Palin's friends.


Your point seems to be that Rs can't be trusted to investigate her, and Ds can't be trusted to investigate her. So who gets to investigate her? Only people she declares to be her "friends?" That's quite a system you're implying. Why not just declare her Queen of Alaska, since no one has standing to constrain her acts?

Once the Democrat running the investigation promised to deliver mud for Obama


French didn't conduct the investigation and write the report. Branchflower did. And there's nothing illegitimate about what French said. As Judge Michalski said:

It is expected that legislators will belong to some party and will support the positions of their party, often publicly. The legislature is, by its nature, a political branch. It would be assumed that, e.g., review of Wall Street's financiers might be founded on a strongly held and expressed belief that somebody did something wrong.


And French never "promised to deliver mud for Obama." He simply speculated about the possible results.

Once the Democrat running the investigation promised to deliver mud for Obama, I see no impropriety in Palin's no longer co-operating with his pet PI.


Check your timeline. French's famous comment ("October surprise") was reported on 9/2. On 9/1, Palin had already filed a motion to have her Personnel Board take over the investigation. That's a nice skill she has: reading newspapers that haven't been published yet.

She had already made her move, and she jumped on French's remark as a lame alibi.
10.12.2008 4:32am
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

'This is true regardless of whether or not one calls it "double jeopardy."'

Then why did you do so?

Again, it's not unreasonable to expect you to be precise, when you (apparently) expect that of others on VC.
10.12.2008 11:31am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Then why did you do so?


Because I think the term properly captures the essential issue, at least from the perspective of a layman's understanding of the term, if not also from a technically legal perspective. I didn't realize that it would also lead to such a nice demonstration of how some people are eager to change the subject. That part was a bonus.
10.12.2008 4:07pm